Table 5.
Association between condom use (during last sex act and consistent condom use) and exposure to various components of the Avahan program intervention in rounds 1 and 2 of IBBA, according to different types of male partners, Maharashtra, India a, b
| Variables | Percentages | Odds ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to Avahan intervention | Not exposed to Avahan intervention | Unadjusted models odds ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted modelscodds ratio (95% CI) | ||
| Condom use during the last sex act | With regular male partner | 80.9 | 76.9 | 1.27 (0.68 – 2.38) | 1.17 (0.64 – 2.14) |
| With paying male partner | 89.3 | 88.0 | 1.13 (0.53 – 2.44) | 0.75 (0.39 – 1.43) | |
| With paid male/hijra partner | 83.8 | 75.5 | 1.68 (0.58 – 4.86) | 2.34 (0.60 – 9.11) | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner | 79.5 | 84.0 | 0.74 (0.35 – 1.57) | 0.73 (0.36 – 1.50) | |
| Consistent condom use | With regular male partner(s) | 74.2 | 57.5 | 2.68 (1.36 – 5.29)** | 2.46 (1.34 – 4.52)** |
| With paid male/hijra partner(s) | 76.5 | 63.4 | 1.89 (0.81 – 4.38) | 3.15 (1.37 – 7.25)** | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner(s) | 73.9 | 50.1 | 2.82 (1.25 – 6.36)* | 3.41 (1.56 – 7.50)** | |
a = The estimates shown here are weighted estimates.
b = The reference for each of the estimate is not being exposed to that particular component of the program. Thus, for consistent condom use with a regular male partner, the interpretation will be as follows: subjects who were exposed to Avahan program were more likely to report consistent condom use with a regular male partner compared with those who were not contacted by the peer (adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.34 – 4.52).
c = The models were adjusted for district of interview, self-reported sexual identity, current age, literacy, place of residence, sex outside place of residence, and main source of income.
* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.